Intel ventures further into the foundry business with 22nm customers

Intel is expanding its foray into the foundry business, with FPGA designer …

Intel is opening up its manufacturing facilities to third parties, as it takes the further tentative steps toward building a chip-to-order foundry business. The microprocessor giant announced last year that it would build FPGAs for Achronix Semiconductor, and on Tuesday a second FPGA designer, Tabula, said that it would have its chips built by Intel.

In its announcement, Tabula emphasized that it would be using Intel's cutting-edge 22nm process with 3D trigate transistors. Intel's manufacturing capabilities are world-leading, with none of the established microprocessor foundries—including TSMC, UMC, and AMD spin-off GlobalFoundries—able to match the company's process.

Compared to the 28 and 32nm processes offered by the competition, Intel's 22nm process should offer higher speeds with lower power usage, at lower cost. The company will start shipping its first 22nm x86 processors, codenamed Ivy Bridge, in the coming months.

Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy says that the company has had other foundry customers in addition to the two that have gone public.

The foundry business is a double-edge sword for Intel. On the one hand, having additional customers gives the chip-maker the ability to keep the factories churning out processors even if demand for new PC chips is low. This makes it easier to recoup its substantial manufacturing investments.

On the other hand, Intel's process advantage is a key part of its competitive advantage: it can build complex chips on a process that's more refined and more advanced than anyone else in the industry. With the company unlikely to want to squander that advantage, it may find its customer base limited.

I doubt they'll ever sell to a direct competitor. Much like Samsung, it would take something like an Apple sized order to make that happen. But that doesn't mean they can't sell to non-competitors like FPGA companies. Possibly the likes of Xilinx or Altera.

On the other hand it could be good for us all if broadcom (with their wireless chips) were able to start building on this process.

Unlikely. Radios and other analog systems don't get the same benefits as digital in regards to process size. Common RF components like inductors and capacitors tend not to scale very well and all components need to be characterized and controlled to tighter tolerances than required for digital. IBM, for example, offers custom foundary services down to 32mm for digital (Cu-32), but only 90nm for RF (9RF). Unless Intel feels an internal need to go through the expense of developing analog-specific processes (or a large vendor feels like throwing an enormous sum of money at them), it's probably not going to happen.

I'm not surprised to see this happening. With each new generation of fab, Intel has more transistors they have to sell in order to recoup their costs and get an ROI. Intel themselves haven't been that great at creating products to sell those additional transistors. If they are going to keep investing in their process leadership, they have to find a way to pay for it.

On the other hand it could be good for us all if broadcom (with their wireless chips) were able to start building on this process.

Unlikely. Radios and other analog systems don't get the same benefits as digital in regards to process size. Common RF components like inductors and capacitors tend not to scale very well and all components need to be characterized and controlled to tighter tolerances than required for digital. IBM, for example, offers custom foundary services down to 32mm for digital (Cu-32), but only 90nm for RF (9RF). Unless Intel feels an internal need to go through the expense of developing analog-specific processes (or a large vendor feels like throwing an enormous sum of money at them), it's probably not going to happen.

One of Broadcom's claim to fame -- possibly their only one actually -- is the ability to implement the RF components such as LNA and PA's on a standard digital CMOS process rather than requiring exotic BiCMOS processes. That's one of the advantages of their WiFi chips over their competitors; it's a single-chip solution that doesn't require a separate analog chip.

But I suspect that if ARM vendors were to use Intel's chips, they'd be used to focus more on the baseband and network processors than on the analog components.

Regarding ARM, though, I seem to vaguely recall reading on one of those tech site (Anand? i forget) that Intel has made statements expressing interest in being a fab for ARM designs. Or at least didn't rule out that possibility completely, but i'm totally drawing a blank.

One of Broadcom's claim to fame -- possibly their only one actually -- is the ability to implement the RF components such as LNA and PA's on a standard digital CMOS process rather than requiring exotic BiCMOS processes. That's one of the advantages of their WiFi chips over their competitors; it's a single-chip solution that doesn't require a separate analog chip.

But I suspect that if ARM vendors were to use Intel's chips, they'd be used to focus more on the baseband and network processors than on the analog components.

I'll admit my knowledge of Broadcom (and commercial processes) is limited. Is it truly a standard digital CMOS process? It's my understanding that some RF processes differ from their digital brethren only in the metal stack and strictness of the design rules (to allow more sophisticated device models), not the addition of new components.

One of Broadcom's claim to fame -- possibly their only one actually -- is the ability to implement the RF components such as LNA and PA's on a standard digital CMOS process rather than requiring exotic BiCMOS processes. That's one of the advantages of their WiFi chips over their competitors; it's a single-chip solution that doesn't require a separate analog chip.

But I suspect that if ARM vendors were to use Intel's chips, they'd be used to focus more on the baseband and network processors than on the analog components.

I'll admit my knowledge of Broadcom (and commercial processes) is limited. Is it truly a standard digital CMOS process? It's my understanding that some RF processes differ from their digital brethren only in the metal stack and strictness of the design rules (to allow more sophisticated device models), not the addition of new components.

Some may allow a few more devices. But you're right. Broadly speaking, we could split processes into

1. "Purely digital" CMOS processes, in which a minimum of features needed for CMOS logic are supported. A slightly extreme example, Intel's 45 nm node (or at least one of the processes) didn't even support 3.3V transistors.

2. "Generic" CMOS processes, for which a broader set of features are supported but still restricted to P and NMOS transistors and a few more devices. The IBM 9RF process you mentioned is an example of this, by the way.

3. More or less "Exotic" non-CMOS processes which support very different types of devices, BiCMOS being one.

I doubt they'll ever sell to a direct competitor. Much like Samsung, it would take something like an Apple sized order to make that happen. But that doesn't mean they can't sell to non-competitors like FPGA companies. Possibly the likes of Xilinx or Altera.

I suppose something like an order from Microsoft or Sony to fab their next-gen game console Power-derived CPU might qualify. If AMD/ATI is precluded, then manufacturing Nvidia GPUs might also be possible. I think both Nvidia & AMD introduced 28nm this year for their high end parts (?)

"With the company unlikely to want to squander that advantage, it may find its customer base limited."

Sorry but its unclear how manufacturing silicon for other companies will squander Intel's process advantage. Do you mean all or some of these issues:

Unintended sharing of process secrets with competition?Few customers are willing to allow Intel to keep their process a secret?Intel's volume for its processors will be reduced with an unlimited customer base?Intel would manufacture processors for its customers that directly compete with Intel processors?

I think the point you've tried to make is potentially very interesting, but I'm not sure what it is.

"With the company unlikely to want to squander that advantage, it may find its customer base limited."

Sorry but its unclear how manufacturing silicon for other companies will squander Intel's process advantage. Do you mean all or some of these issues:

Unintended sharing of process secrets with competition?Few customers are willing to allow Intel to keep their process a secret?Intel's volume for its processors will be reduced with an unlimited customer base?Intel would manufacture processors for its customers that directly compete with Intel processors?

I think the point you've tried to make is potentially very interesting, but I'm not sure what it is.

Take Intel and AMD. If Intel offered to fabricate AMD's processors at 22nm, AMD's processors would get the benefits of 22nm fabrication. If Intel doesn't fabricate AMD processors, then they can sell their own processors with the benefits of 22nm fabrication, while AMD would not (unless they find a foundry that can also produce 22nm transistors).

Sorry but its unclear how manufacturing silicon for other companies will squander Intel's process advantage. Do you mean all or some of these issues:

Actually it's very clear. It's all about profit margins.

Intel makes far, Far, FAR larger margins from selling their own processors than they could ever make by selling fabrication services. Intel may make a chip that costs them $5 then sell it for $99. Were they to build a competitors chip, it would still cost them $5, but they could only sell the fabbed chip for perhaps twice that.

The author of the article is pointing out that the fab customers Intel just announced do not compete with any Intel products. This should not be surprising. Were Intel to allow competeting CPU designers to use their cutting edge 22nm fabs, Intel could lose processor sales. Very High Margin processor sales.

Intel seems to be trying to better amortize the massive costs of their new fabs by having a few select customers, but they're not about to sacrifice the massive margins they make on CPU's by allowing direct competitors to sell chips based on Intel's unique cutting edge process.

Intel will never, ever allow any direct competitor to have access to their cutting edge fabrication process. Perhaps their older processes, but I wouldn't bet on it. They are primary a chip company, this fab stuff is just a way to cut costs. This customer fab business is a sideline, one they could shut down tomorrow and do no lasting damage to their core business.

Take Intel and AMD. If Intel offered to fabricate AMD's processors at 22nm, AMD's processors would get the benefits of 22nm fabrication. If Intel doesn't fabricate AMD processors, then they can sell their own processors with the benefits of 22nm fabrication, while AMD would not (unless they find a foundry that can also produce 22nm transistors).

Agreed, but I'm not sure that was the author's point. It would make no sense for Intel to manufacture components that directly compete with its, and I don't see any reason to suspect they would entertain it. I'm more curious if Peter was alluding to the sharing of process details or volume issues that would limit the growth of Intel's Chip-to-Order Business.

On the other hand, I'd be very curious if the majority of Intel's high end processor advantages come from its manufacturing advantage, and whether AMD could compete at the high end if it found a way to share this process. In other words, would a clock matched 22nm Trigate Fusion APU match the performance of a SNB i7?

Intel will never, ever allow any direct competitor to have access to their cutting edge fabrication process. Perhaps their older processes, but I wouldn't bet on it. They are primary a chip company, this fab stuff is just a way to cut costs. This customer fab business is a sideline, one they could shut down tomorrow and do no lasting damage to their core business.

If all Peter was saying was the above, then I see I just read into it too much. Since he didn't come right out and say what you said above, I was just curious if there was some other limiting factor to producing other (non-competing) silicon that I was unaware of. Clearly, Intel cannot make as much money on Chip-to-Order, but if they have capacity in their foundry then they would be wasting money not to get SOME margin. Do we know if Intel can sell their 22nm processors fast enough to max out capacity?